| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Red Dot'Clicking
   |
Posted - 2007.11.14 13:00:00 -
[1]
There is much talk about how people dislike large groups of ships lagging the servers and about how victory generally goes to the bigger group.
So a solution to this is needed. In real life no navy would put all its ships into a single grouping. That's just asking for someone to drop a nuke on them and sink them all in one go.
What is needed is a mechanism that works against large groups but not smaller ones. An aoe approach would destroy 10 ships or 100 with equal ease.
My proposal would be a chaining weapon. It would hit the first ship for 10 damage, then it would jump to the next withing 50km for 10% more, ie 11, the next for 10% more, ie 12.1.
With a group of 10 ships you would hit the last for a lowly 26 damage, hardly worth using. But with a group of 100 the last would be hit for 138k. It could of course be modified in numerous ways. So you could stop the chain when a ship explodes or make it % of hp to prevent the favouring of large ships.
Such a weapon would overnight remove the large fleets. Instead of an assault being a single huge fleet entering a single system, it would become an attack across a front. Some groups would succeed others fail. The survivors would regroup to continue the attack. Personally I would prefer such a strategic movement of groups rather than the current model of concentrated fire-power.
Opinions? Proposals?
|
Lord Bleu
MisFunk Inc.
Frontline.
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 13:11:00 -
[2]
Nerf the carriers ability to fly solo so they have to fly around in large... Oh... wait a minute! DOOOOWWPPE!
|
Paulo Damarr
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 13:21:00 -
[3]
I think Titans should be made easier to obtain by being much cheaper lets say about 1 bill and doomsday devices cheap to by and use.
That would surely remove fleet blobs.
 Originally by: MOTOK0
A bit like the second coming of jesus only with screaming and tears and whine threads.
|
Sister Impotentata
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 13:21:00 -
[4]
So instead of this, we'll dress up as ships and yell "lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!" at each other. Damnit. The Osprey makes my ass look fat.
-----
TANSTAAFL
Originally by: Hostess
Deconstructing the Twinkie is like trying to deconstruct the universe.
|
duffmantt
Dragonian Freelancers
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 13:27:00 -
[5]
LARPING lmfao
What we do in Eve, Echoes in eternity... |
Nuandha
Caldari
Pukin' Dogs
D0GMA
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 13:29:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Sister Impotentata
So instead of this, we'll dress up as ships and yell "lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!" at each other. Damnit. The Osprey makes my ass look fat.
 omfg
--------------------------------------------------
Designated Splitter!
--------------------------------------------------
|
Paulo Damarr
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 13:29:00 -
[7]
In the EVE LARP do the men wave their thoraxes around?
Originally by: MOTOK0
A bit like the second coming of jesus only with screaming and tears and whine threads.
|
Zolofine
M34t p0p s1ckle Manufacturing
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 13:46:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Sister Impotentata
So instead of this, we'll dress up as ships and yell "lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!" at each other. Damnit. The Osprey makes my ass look fat.
I was 30 seconds of my life back, and i want that memory removed from my brain...
Curse you...
|
Ragstar
Blueprint Haus
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 13:55:00 -
[9]
OP - sounds ilke a VERY odd idea to me. I can't fit it into any sensible context except 'Oh, we some random way of discouraging fleets ... here's one.' :)
It would also potentially suffer from some practical issues, such as, which shis is 'next' - what if two fleets are gonig through ech other, melee style, etc etc.
If you want to discourage large fleets, one option might be to actually limit how many ppl could be included in the fleet according to skills. At the moment, if you exceeed the skills limit, all you do is lose the gang bonuses - no biggie in many cases as the gang bonuses aren't worth a great deal until you're really skilled up. But if it really limited fleet sizes, you'd cut them down instantly, and actually give people with command skills some reason to have them.
|
Mavrix Able
Black Avatar
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 14:38:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Mavrix Able on 14/11/2007 14:38:08
Edit: FFS my wall of text was eaten by the forums...
-NWS/Mav
|
Red Dot'Clicking
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 14:58:00 -
[11]
Cheap doomsday devices are not the answer. Its easy to make up some weapon, say a black hole generater, that sucks an entire fleet into oblivion. The problem is such a weapon works just as well against a single ship. We would reach the situation that everyone is equipped with one.
|
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar
Military Industrial Research
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 22:18:00 -
[12]
Fleets are good.
|
Terex193
Amarr
Advanced Security And Asset Protection
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 22:25:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Paulo Damarr
I think Titans should be made easier to obtain by being much cheaper lets say about 1 bill and doomsday devices cheap to by and use.
That would surely remove fleet blobs.
Thats a terrible idea
Next thing u gonna say is they should be able to kill concord and goto jita
Insert Catchy Signature Here
|
cal nereus
Perkone
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 22:29:00 -
[14]
MDK and BRUCE's last battle was honestly one of the coolest anti-Blobbing strategies I've ever seen/heard. It probably won't work under the same circumstances twice, but it opens the eyes. Blobs aren't invincible; you can break them. In that battle, BRUCE had two fleets attacking from different directions, which likely saved half of the BRUCEs. I don't see why Blobbing is bad (except for the lag associated with it).
---
Join BH-DL
Skills |
Mavrix Able
Black Avatar
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 22:31:00 -
[15]
Fleets/blobs are fine, but as long as the server can't handle it, spreading people out is better.
-NWS/Mav
|
Laboratus
Gallente
BGG
League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 22:46:00 -
[16]
Why would we want to reduce them...
___
P.S.
Post with your main.
Mind control and tin hats |
Red Dot'Clicking
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 23:10:00 -
[17]
There are two main reasons you would want to do so.
1) Lag. Nobody likes playing at 2 fps. It makes a mockery of tactics when you cant see what is happening.
2) Strategy. Instead of whoever has the biggest fleet wins you have a series of battles along a front. Putting the right ships at the right places at the right time. Using fients to draw their reserves in the wrong direction etc.
You may have won in your system, but you are informed your neighbours have lost and they are coming for you, you better retreat. This leads to a much more involved form of warfare instead of target something and hope you can do something before being killed by the lag.
|
Doddy
Omega Fleet Enterprises
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 23:11:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Red Dot'Clicking
There is much talk about how people dislike large groups of ships lagging the servers and about how victory generally goes to the bigger group.
So a solution to this is needed. In real life no navy would put all its ships into a single grouping. That's just asking for someone to drop a nuke on them and sink them all in one go.
What is needed is a mechanism that works against large groups but not smaller ones. An aoe approach would destroy 10 ships or 100 with equal ease.
My proposal would be a chaining weapon. It would hit the first ship for 10 damage, then it would jump to the next withing 50km for 10% more, ie 11, the next for 10% more, ie 12.1.
With a group of 10 ships you would hit the last for a lowly 26 damage, hardly worth using. But with a group of 100 the last would be hit for 138k. It could of course be modified in numerous ways. So you could stop the chain when a ship explodes or make it % of hp to prevent the favouring of large ships.
Such a weapon would overnight remove the large fleets. Instead of an assault being a single huge fleet entering a single system, it would become an attack across a front. Some groups would succeed others fail. The survivors would regroup to continue the attack. Personally I would prefer such a strategic movement of groups rather than the current model of concentrated fire-power.
Opinions? Proposals?
Yes there is no such thing as a carrier battlegroup in real life, not to mention invasion fleets, sub wolfpacks, convoys blah blah blah. And a nuke kills one ship just as effectively as a fleet thank-you very much, dont get "chaining weapons" in rl so why use an analogy at all? The only thing that is going to stop large fleets is changing the dynamics for taking space. To use these rl analogies people love on here, the allies would not have attacked multiple beaches on d-day if the germans had staggered the stront timers and only defended the one beach coming out of reinforced would they?
|
Atama Cardel
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 23:15:00 -
[19]
I think someone just read Ender's Game
Originally by: Odda
hey im a gonnie and i like to sue CCP to gett the game to my favor
|
Kenneth McCoy
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 23:24:00 -
[20]
I think fleets would be totally **** if the servers could handle it. Large fights are only bad because the lag makes it barely playable, much less enjoyable.
And the bigger side doesn't always win.
My opinions and views are not the official views of my Corp. |
Ralitge boyter
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 23:27:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Ralitge boyter on 14/11/2007 23:30:46
With no viable way to have any form of tactics but the brute force hit the other guy over the head harder then he hits you we will never have anything else but the blob effect.
When we have key parts without which a fleet will not work that can actually be protected like the aircraft carriers in the modren navys are now we will see the blob dying out and more inteligent warfare going on.
For many centuries the people of a place called earth relied on number to crush their foe. We here in EVE have the same thing we need numbers to win. There is no option to kill one player and win the battle, as soon as that comes in you will see blobs die and tactical warfare start.
In a game like EVE where every player has a chance to control a battleship and the price/power of such a ship is so minimal that it does not mean any party wins when the opposing battleship is destroyed the only way to win is to bring more to the table then the other guy.
Of course out great fleet comanders will cry out that they make the difference but in the end the battle could just as easily have been won if you send 500 more battleships into the fight then the other guy did... and that is what makes the difference. Sure tactics count for somehting but they do not win wars, a battle maybe but not the entire war.
-------------------------------------------
Should you disagree with me, well I guess that is because I disagree with you. If you have a problem with that please feel free not to tell me. |
Red Dot'Clicking
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 23:54:00 -
[22]
Quote:
Yes there is no such thing as a carrier battlegroup in real life, not to mention invasion fleets, sub wolfpacks, convoys blah blah blah. And a nuke kills one ship
A carrier battlegroup consists of a carrier and some destroyers and frigates holding picket 20 miles out. They are there to protect the carrier against airborne missile attacks and submarines. It is a small group. The carrier is everything the small ships are disposable in that goal.
A nuke at sea is not about blast. The tidal wave it produces will sink all ships well over the horizon. You dont put them together when you know the other guy has the capacity to nuke you. Against a non nuking enemy its a good defensive strategy.
This is seen in the obsolesence of big carriers. They survive no better than a small carrier against a nuke. Hence modern carriers are much smaller and more numerous than the old big boats (the US still has some pointless titans)
I recall when they were planning the invasion of Iraq, they played war simulations. One of them had found a way that Iraq would win. His strategy was simply to sink the US fleet. They fired him from his job :) That was a non nuking enemy remember.
Carrier battlegroup - Fine defence against convential attacks, ships, subs, and air.
Invasion fleet - Same. You are keeping your transports together for destroyer coverage against ships/subs/air.
Sub wolf packs - You are attempting to overpower/confuse the convoys limited defence.
You cant defend against a nuke, despite the missile defence programs cliams, you simply cant stop an ICBM. You dont even have to be accurate just let the wave do its job.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |